Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic
aerohead:
It occurs to me that you might locally advertise:
"Looking for 'Old Smokey' car (engine) for science experiment.
If you are planning to have your old smokey worn out car's engine rebuilt...
...NB that this is experimental and may have the opposite of the desired effect...at your own risk... etc" As a means of finding a car/engine on which to test this with zero risk.
As you are such a 'renowned expert' on all things automotive, you should have little trouble finding a local test subject, from one of your followers, on which to properly and fully test this 'heresy!' 
It also occurs to me that:
As you seem intent on NOT following the given science and logic based advice, in an all out attempt to disprove my candid observations; you may not be the best person to suggest this to..?
So:
ANYONE ELSE
here might try this. |
1) 'Scientific' testing of a 'smoky' engine would be oxymoronic.
2) All official testing is done only after an engine tuneup, new oil filter, and new air cleaner.
3) Oil-fouling of the brand-new sparkplugs would begin immediately, wrecking any chance of limiting test variables to a single value.
4) You wouldn't be able to establish any baseline data for the 'pre-modified; car, used to do the delta-performance comparison with the 'post-modified' car.
5) Typically, only an engine of which all of its specifications were within acceptable tolerances, would even be considered for testing.
6) Both 'proving grounds', and 'engine test-cell, electric dynamometer-tachometer' testing would be done, requiring knowledge of the cars ROAD LOAD, at each test 'speed'.
7) When CAR and DRIVER tested Spindletop at the Chrysler Proving Grounds, East Chelsea, Michigan, in 1991, my cost was $500/hour ( US ). Adjusted for inflation that would be $1,170 /hour. The test requires 12-runs in total, six of them must be 'consecutive.' I have no idea how much time it would take for 'pre-mod, and post-mod, plus the time to do the drain, and flushing operations.
8) If we took a shot in the dark, and presumed that a engine test-cell might also fetch that rate, then a single engine run ( of the two required ), would cost $ 118,170 (US).
9) You'd also have to pay for the time to drain the oil, refill with fresh oil, run it up to 'warmed-up,' shut it down, drain it, then finally fill it with the new, 'experimental oil, and run it up to 'fully-warmed.''
10) Then you could do the final 100-hour test for the comparison. Another $ 118,170.
11) The raw data would undergo statistical analysis, smoothing the scatter-plots to achieve the 'smoothing' necessary for interpolations and extrapolations.
12) Then, everything would be adjusted to SAE/ISO Standard atmospheric conditions. CAR and DRIVER has their own suite of meteorological instruments for the continuous weather monitoring required to be logged, and later used in data reduction. Chrysler has the four-scale weighing system for the four wheels. Daytron Messtechnik Correvet ( sp?) optical 5th-wheel does exact velocity measurements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's 'pricey'! But good 'science'.
And only way to identify the signal-to-noise.